Your typing of forum members

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylen

I have been slowly working on my spreadsheet when the mood strikes me. I observe more than I say. I need to have it clear and as close to accurate without interference from feelings (emotions, good or bad) or shreds of doubts. I think I have an old thread where I typed some people too. Not sure if I closed it. Only a few of my typings have changed since then due to new information. I like participating in typing someone only when I can ask questions and get their feedback. Sometimes I speculate with friends which is fun. I do get instant impressions based on some vibes from videos and pics but I am more into wait and see how a personality unfolds both irl and on the forum. The issue is separating what is natural and what is coming from reading too many descriptions. People tend to want to be in a quadra with those they like and push those they don't out. I don't want to be like that.

When I joined every petite, pretty, flowery, innocent looking girl was being typed IEI by the active members then. Many of them had red hair too. haha Trends change though and some of those girls were troll accounts, not all. All that is fluff to me. I will share when I am ready to present it with clarity. :)

---

Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

The first thing you describe is Ti. Discard irrelevant facts: Ti, one overarching system for everything: Ti, filtering everything through it: Ti.

The second thing you describe is Irrational Ni abstractions without the strict logical consistency of Ti and in high opposition with the tangible reality of Se.

---

The Second 'thing' is a form of Thinking: it is a Rational form of thought. It requires judgment of the material in order to prioritize and separate information based on its internal structure. This hasn't much to do with Intuition.. and it is odd to me that you consider it so. Ni does not concern itself with theories or structures in the slightest.

As for the First, discarding irrelevant facts is Te when the focus is exactly on organizing these facts according to their value.

Quote:

---

Lol - nice Fe performance.

---

Pff, you ain't seen nothin yet!

the idea that "if we allow new theories or modifications to promulgate, things will get worse not better", thus it needs to be resisted/suppressed, is a combination of -Te -Ni +Ti +Se. traits both LSE and LSI share. LSI is more aggressive. Sol is LSE for sure, since he doesn't go around hurting people directly, he collects youtubes to make his point. because of their similarity in situations such as these people accuse him of being LSI a lot, but if he was he'd be more beta valuing, which is precisely why quadral values are a thing and observable across a certain strata

Attachment 13038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samson

The Second 'thing' is a form of Thinking: it is a Rational form of thought. It requires judgment of the material in order to prioritize and separate information based on its internal structure. This hasn't much to do with Intuition.. and it is odd to me that you consider it so. Ni does not concern itself with theories or structures in the slightest.

---

For sure we use very different definitions and systems here.

IEIs do tell me they perceive abstract structures. What you described is Irrational and opposing Se also because "As a result, you can be a Fe type based on Jung's, and a Ne type based on a disconnected-from-reality Ti child."

Irrational Ni doesn't really worry about observing all the logical consistency that Ti does care about. In this example, the Fe vs Ne typings are not logically consistent. Disconnect from tangible Se reality is again most heavily true of Ni, Ti isn't actually in opposition with Se, only Ni is.

Quote:

---

As for the First, discarding irrelevant facts is Te when the focus is exactly on organizing these facts according to their value.

---

That's Ti with assigning subjective (=introverted) values in a logical fashion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

the idea that "if we allow new theories or modifications to promulgate, things will get worse not better", thus it needs to be resisted/suppressed, is a combination of -Te -Ni +Ti +Se. traits both LSE and LSI share. LSI is more aggressive. Sol is LSE for sure, since he doesn't go around hurting people directly, he collects youtubes to make his point. because of their similarity in situations such as these people accuse him of being LSI a lot, but if he was he'd be more beta valuing, which is precisely why quadral values are a thing and observable across a certain strata

---

LSI doesn't go around hurting people directly either. You have weird notions of the type... If we really have to get into it, the aggression is subordinated to Ti rules keeping in mind a very collectivist, society oriented mindset so nah it's not gonna be about throwing random aggressive attacks just to hurt people. Really anyway this isn't type related whether someone wants to hurt others.

Also, actually, some people think @Sol is pretty pushy lol, I personally don't worry about that. Maybe you also don't because you are Se ego too. Idk.

did I say it was random? the fact its in the service of some Ti ideology makes it worse anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

did I say it was random? the fact its in the service of some Ti ideology makes it worse anyway

---

Alright goto anarchy then. Enjoy.

Did I say its never useful, and is any criticism a wholesale embrace of anarchy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

Did I say its never useful, and is any criticism a wholesale embrace of anarchy?

---

I just find your stereotyping real weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

For sure we use very different definitions and systems here.

IEIs do tell me they perceive abstract structures. What you described is Irrational and opposing Se also because "As a result, you can be a Fe type based on Jung's, and a Ne type based on a disconnected-from-reality Ti child."

Irrational Ni doesn't really worry about observing all the logical consistency that Ti does care about. In this example, the Fe vs Ne typings are not logically consistent. Disconnect from tangible Se reality is again most heavily true of Ni, Ti isn't actually in opposition with Se, only Ni is.

That's Ti with assigning subjective (=introverted) values in a logical fashion...

---

Of course IEI's can see and use abstract structures => that was never my objection. I say that Ni doesn't care about theories and the organization of internal structures.

Because of this, Ni will not concern itself with differentiating theory, because it is not interested in theory. "Fe type" and "Ne type" are empty constructs from the position of Ni. These are terms that are given value using a Rational approach only. The splitting of theories from application and then evaluating them using its own inner logic (circular logic) is exactly what Ti is prone to doing, as it tends to ignore Te.

Again, Ni does not concern itself with theory.

The disconnect is (also) from Se indeed, which is why Socionics and other such constructs are LII heavy. Ti Base with Se Vulnerable, the theorist is very happy to develop its own theory and to not regard other 'versions' as true or valid or even taking them into account at all. They stand alone, disconnected from both source and reality.


Organizing facts is Thinking, it is something that both Te and Ti engage in. It requires data and a rule of measurement. When the data and the rule of measurement is extraverted, it is Te. When the data and the rule of measurement is introverted, it is Ti. In this instance I am talking about organizing sources (external data) according to their applicability (external rule of measurement). Does source A align with source B? Does the application of the theory work or falter? The role of Ti has been fulfilled already, as the theories aren't seen in need of much inner adjustment, outside of accounting for its inherent bias re:application. Te.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

It's interesting you don't find it a meaningful dichotomy, while I experience it as a significant factor in practice too... the difference between Rationals and Irrationals. Pretty fundamental.

---

I should point out that what I'm saying isn't new, Dmitri Lytov identified it many years ago, but for the most part Russian socionists seem not to have heeded his criticism.

Quote:

---

What is your problem with Jung btw, I'm curious, what do you see that's so much better in Socionics?

---

I've read Jung. Some of it was interesting, and I commented on it on my blog. But mostly it was elaborate descriptions that have very little to do with reality, and definitely have only a tenuous connection with their corresponding socionics definitions. He seems to inject his own personality (Ni) into how he describes people's motivations.

Plus all of the aforementioned stuff like intertype and interelement relations. You said that Jung talked about this, and I'd be interested in seeing where he mentions it, but his theory of interactions is far, far less well developed than socionics'.

Augusta herself said that Jung's theory "changed beyond all recognition" in the process of developing socionics. Going back to Jung would be a step backwards for the most part. I don't see how someone can claim that Augusta both improved Jung and somehow also "lost" much of what made his theory good in the process (thus requiring repeated references back to Jung himself and not socionics writers). This would only make sense if you view socionics as being more akin to the nonsense that most philosophers engage in, where there is no standard of proof, rather than as science where you make a model and continually refine it based on observation.

Quote:

---

I was referring to this sort of thing:

Ni as creative function of EIE (ENFj; Hamlet) and LIE (ENTj; Jack London) - like to find internally contradictory people, "dig" in them and create in them internal harmony and mood. They make for great artists, because they know how to and love to "become" one with an image of a man and play a role from his worldview. They are able to understand the essence of complex internal situations and make for potentially good analysts. Often it is difficult to find employment for them, as their "product" is the internal conflicts of man and essence, and to penetrate so far, into "the soul" of man, you just need to have permission. Often become unstable, vulnerable, fragile, just so that they can harmonize themselves, and sometimes can start to torment and tear into themselves and dig into their own issues. They have a difficulty finding adequate application to their creative function in the world, since it is not in high demand - not everyone wants someone else to dig into their internal states. Their product - bold ideas, principles, systems of belief and knowledge that they bring into the world and promote. But they do this beautifully, creatively, elegantly, not forcibly imposing them but promoting them in interesting ways. Search for internally contradictory situations, like to grasp their essence. Often realize themselves in art and writing, as this is also a good way to use the function. They are able to enter into various internal psychological states. A good speaker, as he is able to influence positively on the internal state of others. Their product is the "wholeness" of the internal state, and therefore they can find success in field of psychology, because it means that they are the healers of souls. In life they loved to dramatize everything. Everyone around becomes informed about the slightest change in their mood or internal state. Usually they are very fond of "making mountains out of molehills", for them this is a way to find work for their second function. The more they become exposed - the greater the realization of their personality in the world.

(see the bolded parts especially)

---

This is a decent description of an EIE or IEI, as an LIE description it's just bizarre. LIEs are "fragile healers of souls"??? Love to dramatize everything? :confused: They are clearly mixing up Fe and Ni here, or someone mislabeled the description...

silke: SLI
Mio Q: IEE edit --> changed to SEI
Feathers: ILI edit --> changed to EII --> changed to IEE ... final now I think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

Feathers: ILI

---

Am I smart enough yet, DADDY?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feathers

Am I smart enough yet, DADDY?

---

ur TIM :>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

ur TIM :>

---

Awh stop it you'll make a schoolgirl out of me .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feathers

Awh stop it you'll make a schoolgirl out of me .

---

*showers with eggplants*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

*showers with eggplants*

---

Attachment 13041

@Kavia LII, possibly :hug:(just a guess at this point)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

I should point out that what I'm saying isn't new, Dmitri Lytov identified it many years ago

---

I do not remember there was anything meaningful to think the dichotomy J/P as it's described in MBT have no good correlation with Jung's types. From theory point - only weak speculations he could to say.
At best he could to use a functional test to check the correlations between types that test gets with the questions related by him to J/P dichotomy. In case those correlations were bad, that could be related to the quality of the test.
I notice the same like Myst in my experience. J/P is seen in people as should to be. If your experience shows the other and you need to use doubtful rationalizations - mb it's due to your incorrect typing.

> but for the most part Russian socionists seem not to have heeded his criticism.

as this needs better basis

I notice not in the first time like you strangely use the classical part of the typology. Previously you baselessly interpreted Si as low energy. Baselessly claimed that Fe used in Socionics contradicts to Jung's definition. Now you claim J/P dichotomy is incorrect without good reasons. Besides the rejection of the normal theory and its pervertion, you additionaly use heresy like baseless Reinin's traits.
I suppose such strange relation to the theory helps you to ignore and rationalize the contradictions you see with the theory with own typings. As the result - what you are using is not Socionics, as you reject and pervert its basics and ingnore where your results contradict to the theory. Your speculative negativism is more important for you than objectivity. With such approach you baselessly turn your "Socionics" to a heretical theoretical mess, though which mb comfortable to rationalize typing mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

@Kavia LII, possibly :hug:(just a guess at this point)

---

NIFF :oops: that’s so amusing to me because my IEI ex of 6 years typed me LII and you’re literally like the only person after him to suggest that typing again, haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samson

Of course IEI's can see and use abstract structures => that was never my objection. I say that Ni doesn't care about theories and the organization of internal structures.

---

I don't know what you mean by "theory", so we are not on the same page.

Quote:

---

Because of this, Ni will not concern itself with differentiating theory, because it is not interested in theory. "Fe type" and "Ne type" are empty constructs from the position of Ni. These are terms that are given value using a Rational approach only. The splitting of theories from application and then evaluating them using its own inner logic (circular logic) is exactly what Ti is prone to doing, as it tends to ignore Te.

---

The problem is, your idea of Ti neglects overall logical consistency with the example of typing someone Fe then typing them Ne.

Maybe it's due to your IEI pov? IEIs do ignore logical consistency pretty often compared to LxI.

Agreed on theory vs application. (Finally something we agree on.) Ti on its own isn't about application in the outside world. That comes in only with added extraverted information processing.

Quote:

---

The disconnect is (also) from Se indeed, which is why Socionics and other such constructs are LII heavy. Ti Base with Se Vulnerable, the theorist is very happy to develop its own theory and to not regard other 'versions' as true or valid or even taking them into account at all. They stand alone, disconnected from both source and reality.

---

Please now consider Ti with Se in ego.

Quote:

---

Organizing facts is Thinking, it is something that both Te and Ti engage in. It requires data and a rule of measurement. When the data and the rule of measurement is extraverted, it is Te. When the data and the rule of measurement is introverted, it is Ti. In this instance I am talking about organizing sources (external data) according to their applicability (external rule of measurement). Does source A align with source B? Does the application of the theory work or falter? The role of Ti has been fulfilled already, as the theories aren't seen in need of much inner adjustment, outside of accounting for its inherent bias re:application. Te.

---

Yeah, when LSI goes to Se (and LII to Ne), Ti already finished processing, no longer needing to do major adjustments.

What did you mean by "as for the First, discarding irrelevant facts is Te when the focus is exactly on organizing these facts according to their value" tho'.

Again, @Sol was comparing systems like Ti does it. Like I said, one overarching system for everything: Ti, filtering everything through it: Ti. And yes, discarding irrelevant facts is also Ti, Te doesn't discard them - Ti is well known for valuing their systematic reasoning higher than the raw facts in that way.

Also, one-fit-for-all is just LSI's Ne PoLR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

I should point out that what I'm saying isn't new, Dmitri Lytov identified it many years ago, but for the most part Russian socionists seem not to have heeded his criticism.

---

I've seen writings on this I think. I still find it a valid dichotomy tho'.

Quote:

---

I've read Jung. Some of it was interesting, and I commented on it on my blog. But mostly it was elaborate descriptions that have very little to do with reality, and definitely have only a tenuous connection with their corresponding socionics definitions. He seems to inject his own personality (Ni) into how he describes people's motivations.

---

Eh I type Jung LII , heh (this isn't the main reason for typing him as LII but yeah, if he was Ni I'd have an easier time reading his stuff than with all that Ne besides the Ni demo).

Anyway, skimmed your blog entry... just one comment, I think Socionics has that distinction about S/N just fine.

I value Jung's stuff in terms of how it has certain good concepts that Socionics just refined, I would not say it's just tenuous connections for those. E.g. how strong functions will abstract more of their information type into processing them purely. Jung already had this idea. And then of course the function dynamics.

For functions/IEs most of it seems to match too alright, just Jung put stuff in a really obscure way and focused on intrapersonal dynamics of the opposing functions and not on the interpersonal dynamics of them. But it's the same thing really.

Quote:

---

Plus all of the aforementioned stuff like intertype and interelement relations. You said that Jung talked about this, and I'd be interested in seeing where he mentions it, but his theory of interactions is far, far less well developed than socionics'.

---

Oh I just meant the above.

And yes he may not have had an elaborate ITR but nuanced Socionics ITR is wrong anyway beyond the robust basics that are already present in Jung's theory. And some of it outside Jung too, in other sources as well. Including scientific.

Quote:

---

Augusta herself said that Jung's theory "changed beyond all recognition" in the process of developing socionics. Going back to Jung would be a step backwards for the most part. I don't see how someone can claim that Augusta both improved Jung and somehow also "lost" much of what made his theory good in the process (thus requiring repeated references back to Jung himself and not socionics writers). This would only make sense if you view socionics as being more akin to the nonsense that most philosophers engage in, where there is no standard of proof, rather than as science where you make a model and continually refine it based on observation.

---

Oh I do prefer Socionics's more technically refined language, not saying that's to be dropped. I think Augusta did lose some of Jung's stuff in the process though, yes. Aspects of the functions and aspects of their intrapersonal dynamics.

Science? Unfortunately Socionics in its current form isn't science but it could be made that. Of course the lots of nuances from e.g. DarkAngelFireWolf69 will never be made scientific inside this model.

Quote:

---

This is a decent description of an EIE or IEI, as an LIE description it's just bizarre. LIEs are "fragile healers of souls"??? Love to dramatize everything? :confused: They are clearly mixing up Fe and Ni here, or someone mislabeled the description...

---

I've seen LIEs sometimes bring out the drama heh. Intuitive drama, not Ethical. So yeah, my point was Intuitive perception of internal states, consciousness aspects etc. I'd definitely have an issue with it whenever some people seem to mix that up with Ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

I do not remember there was anything meaningful to think the dichotomy J/P as it's described in MBT have no good correlation with Jung's types. From theory point - only weak speculations he could to say.
At best he could to use a functional test to check the correlations between types that test gets with the questions related by him to J/P dichotomy. In case those correlations were bad, that could be related to the quality of the test.
I notice the same like Myst in my experience. J/P is seen in people as should to be

---

Agreed here.

Quote:

---

If your experience shows the other and you need to use doubtful rationalizations - mb it's due to your incorrect typing.

---

Oh he's LII just fine, I think.

Quote:

---

> but for the most part Russian socionists seem not to have heeded his criticism.

as this needs better basis

I notice not in the first time like you strangely use the classical part of the typology. Previously you baselessly interpreted Si as low energy. Baselessly claimed that Fe used in Socionics contradicts to Jung's definition. Now you claim J/P dichotomy is incorrect without good reasons. Besides the rejection of the normal theory and its pervertion, you additionaly use heresy like baseless Reinin's traits.
I suppose such strange relation to the theory helps you to ignore and rationalize the contradictions you see with the theory with own typings. As the result - what you are using is not Socionics, as you reject and pervert its basics and ingnore where your results contradict to the theory. Your speculative negativism is more important for you than objectivity. With such approach you baselessly turn your "Socionics" to a heretical theoretical mess, though which mb comfortable to rationalize typing mistakes.

---

You really dislike the Ne heh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Sol was comparing systems like Ti does it.

---

The logical comparision is Ti process.

> And yes, discarding irrelevant facts is also Ti

the logical object/context, figure/background separation is Ti. the usage of Te has Ti as the shadow
for Te types the object is primary. that's why I search for objectivity. and try to reject what has no objective basis or at least personal experience which I find as objective enough.
In Socionics I do not like many theories. it's Ti types who search for another new explanations and models. I prefer to have the one model until it works good in the conditions needed by me on practice. I'm interested in real results.

> Te doesn't discard them

there is no Te without Ti

> Also, one-fit-for-all is just LSI's Ne PoLR

*sigh*

to type many people by Ne for own pleasure is from Ne polr :)
check my EII/ESI and EIE/ESE bloggers. type those women. I personally like base Fi examples more than Fe ones. emotions of Fe examples I often perceive as surface, fake or even annoying. Fi examples make my heart warmer - they are more humane than Fe in my perception. I lean to and trust to Fi examples. those women attract my heart more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

The logical comparision is Ti process.

> And yes, discarding irrelevant facts is also Ti

the logical object/context, figure/background separation is Ti. the usage of Te has Ti as the shadow
for Te types the object is primary. that's why I search for objectivity. and try to reject what has no objective basis or at least personal experience which I find as objective enough.
In Socionics I do not like many theories. it's Ti types who search for another new explanations and models. I prefer to have the one model until it works good in the conditions needed by me on practice. I'm interested in real results.

> Te doesn't discard them

there is no Te without Ti

---

So you are trying to say that you display both Ti and Te because you are strong in both?

Both are External IEs btw, in this sense they are both objective, dealing with the quantifiable traits of objects.

It's N types that keep searching for new explanations and models all the time. Ti with N would definitely have that tendency the most strongly, but Ti with S will not. I agree on preferring real results in Se tangible reality. And one overarching model to cover things and filter things based on it.

The conditions stuff sounds like Ti.

Quote:

---

> Also, one-fit-for-all is just LSI's Ne PoLR

*sigh*

to type many people by Ne for own pleasure is from Ne polr :)
check my EII/ESI and EIE/ESE bloggers. type those women. I personally like base Fi examples more than Fe ones. emotions of Fe examples I often perceive as surface, fake or even annoying. Fi examples make my heart warmer - they are more humane than Fe in my perception. I lean to and trust to Fi examples. those women attract my heart more

---

Ni can be used for typing too...

Fe creative can come off as too superficial-light-loose yeah. Fe base is of course still more surface than Fi but I don't think it's fake like too creative Fe can be (tho' the Fe creative is not always fake, no, imo... but sometimes it gets REALLY bad with it due to inconsistency!). Anyway, ok, can't comment on your Fi stuff. I agree they can be more humane than Fe and I like that, I just find drawbacks too to Fi. And overall Fi just doesn't work for me beyond a level. Even Fe creative works better heh

How do you deal with EII guilt-tripping? :)

I might've asked that before but I don't think you said much... still curious. For me the only thing with EII that worked was ignoring them until they shut up. Ti and Fi really can run parallel to each other, no working communication in many conflicts.

And ok, if I get time I'll look at the stuff.

@Myst according to her views as Ti stubbornly rejects the facts which does not fit her conception of me being LSI. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

@Myst according to her views as Ti stubbornly rejects the facts which does not fit her conception of me being LSI. :)

---

What facts did I reject? I said I hear you, and have no comment atm.

Where I said "Ti is well known for valuing their systematic reasoning higher than the raw facts in that way". It means it won't bother with facts that do not add anything sensible to the Ti reasoning. That reasoning however can be updated and new facts can be interpreted and integrated into it if it adds to the understanding and improves on the system. It may take time deliberating on it but it will happen. So it's hardly about simply ignoring facts as a knee-jerk reaction. :p

Also, things have to match up, taking your example. If you exhibit Ti constantly then exhibit some liking of some Fi aspects, then the matter has to be investigated more closely to explain it. Can't just simply automatically say oh ok you like Fi so you are LSE, as I don't ignore the other observations either.

wouldn't that be funny if Myst were LSE and Sol were LSI? :content:

Jung actually says in psychological types that if he were a different type himself he would have written the book in an entirely inverse manner with rationals being irrational etc. I think this is actually some of the source of the constant disagreement in socionics, which is depending on what angle you approach from things can have inverse meanings, which makes communication difficult. its not that different phenomenon is being observed, two people are still talking about the same thing, they just fundamentally disagree on how to frame it rationally, at a level that precedes reconciliation at the verbal level, in fact personality differentiates itself at precisely that level. so if people could agree and when they do agree, it indicates significant similarities, similarities that need not be and are by no means universal, despite what we like to think about rationality and language and so forth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

wouldn't that be funny if Myst were LSE and Sol were LSI? :content:

---

Huh? :)

PS: The Jung thing... that's just silly. Some stuff does actually exist out there as is, you can't just randomly reinterpret everything as you please.

the point is people do and you gain nothing by pretending its not already happening. in other words, saying you can't doesn't make it go away. the silver lining is the interpretations aren't random

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

the point is people do and you gain nothing by pretending its not already happening. in other words, saying you can't doesn't make it go away. the silver lining is the interpretations aren't random

---

I was responding before you added more lines. I was specifically responding to this: "Jung actually says in psychological types that if he were a different type himself he would have written the book in an entirely inverse manner with rationals being irrational etc.".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

I think this is actually some of the source of the constant disagreement in socionics, which is depending on what angle you approach from things can have inverse meanings, which makes communication difficult. its not that different phenomenon is being observed, two people are still talking about the same thing, they just fundamentally disagree on how to frame it rationally, at a level that precedes reconciliation at the verbal level, in fact personality differentiates itself at precisely that level. so if people could agree and when they do agree, it indicates significant similarities, similarities that need not be and are by no means universal, despite what we like to think about rationality and language and so forth

---

Actually some different phenomena are surely observed too by different people if their experiences and observations do not overlap much, and sure, people use different explanatory frameworks for interpreting observations of even the same phenomena, but I don't believe in this idea that personality would matter so much about objectively existing things. Everyone should have the capability to observe objectively too besides their personality being whatever.


And so what's with the LSE/LSI thing? I'm all ears lol on how you see @Sol more Ti than me :p

I'm making no claims as to whether its true or not, whatever that even means, just that its a funny thought to think you two are going back and forth but are both wrong but both agree on one thing: that something isn't quite right. in that sense you agree across one level but are having trouble sorting it out, which is mainly what personality amounts to and discussions about personality is not immune to that, despite how it tends to assume it is, mainly on the basis of the fact that it thinks by talking about it its taking it into account but the truth is its subject to it. thats the whole joke of two rationals arguing they could literally go on forever or end up fighting if they can't acknowledge that. the funny thing is as soon as they resort to an actual fight they've just agreed to settle it on the level of perception, which is exactly the solution, they just did not do it abstractly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

I'm making no claims as to whether its true or not, whatever that even means, just that its a funny thought to think you two are going back and forth but are both wrong but both agree on one thing: that something isn't quite right. in that sense you agree across one level but are having trouble sorting it out, which is mainly what personality amounts to and discussions about personality is not immune to that, despite how it tends to assume it is, mainly on the basis of the fact that it thinks by talking about it its taking it into account but the truth is its subject to it. thats the whole joke of two rationals arguing they could literally go on forever or end up fighting if they can't acknowledge that. the funny thing is as soon as they resort to an actual fight they've just agreed to settle it on the level of perception, which is exactly the solution, they just did not do it abstractly

---

Uhh we actually have pretty similar views on how to view Socionics from a practical but still logically consistent pov. I definitely do NOT agree with him in everything beyond that, just this way of thinking is what is incredibly familiar to me. So not really, that's not why we disagree on some things, not due to this thing you bring up.

Heh arguments with Rationals... uhm, I can argue with some of them for very long yeah lol. But it does often get somewhere somewhat. I mean, both parties get to take away something from it and then it's already good.

Arguing about views isn't rationality, it's Ti (with maybe some Se depending on how confrontational it is). Two LSIs will typically butt heads about opposing views, EIIs not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Arguing about views isn't rationality, it's Ti (with maybe some Se depending on how confrontational it is). Two LSIs will typically butt heads about opposing views, EIIs not so much.

---

I used to argue with an LIE a looot. Not all the time, no, but sometimes we really butted heads. It was over some people related things always, I think. We'd both process the other person's side eventually, kinda, and get something out of it.

Oh man, and EIIs... it is Fi and Ti going parallel next to each other, it's completely pointless arguments.

EDIT: none of this is about theoretical arguments BTW. It would be related to real life matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Arguing about views isn't rationality, it's Ti (with maybe some Se depending on how confrontational it is). Two LSIs will typically butt heads about opposing views, EIIs not so much.

---

lol spoken like a true LxI. if you understood my point you'd realize that you've constructed an internal model where this may be true, but it is by no means absolutely true. this is precisely why opinions can differ on socionics--and even a variety of models reflecting those different views have emerged. one could just as easily say arguing isn't even about rationality its about superiority in space or time. or an expression of ethical commitments. the base function can invade territory in this sense. once you understand the same thing can be understood differently, but that understanding is a function of rationality not simply Ti-- and that rationality can expand to transgress the lines drawn by other base functions and its precisely over the disputed territory that rationality "argues"... when Fi argues with Ti it doesn't look like a Ti v Ti argument but to say all arguments are Ti v Ti is to predefine the terrority on the basis of your own ontological, i.e. base Ti commitments. in other words your statement is just a form of intellectual aggression not really some kind of "example", rather it is itself an interpretation. I'm sure some of the most bitter conflicts ever to occur were between EIIs--if you exclude that at the onset from admission into your model that doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means as a matter of power you've excluded it to the extent possible, which is probably not very far in absolute terms, it may in fact be limited to in your own mind, if no one else is buying it

in short to say EIIs don't argue is really to say "EII's don't argue like me" therefore they don't argue. which is frankly absurd and extremely limited in its grasp of the outer situation

an alternative definition: rationality is every form of order overlaid on perception (perception is inherently disorganized i.e.: irrational), when two organizations of the same perception don't agree and each party asserts its principle, which it cannot fail to do, since people embody their rational principles and act them out, (people can lie about their rational principles but they can't fail to embody them). thus when a true disjunction occurs an argument ensues across the communicative space. it may or may not be in logico linguistic format, but it is nonetheless a competition of ideas. there are many ways to resolve these, the most brutal of which is to eliminate the idea at its source by eliminating the embodiment of it via violence. gossip is a form of argument for example, beauty is a form of argument, nuclear weapons are an argument, they're all rational organizing principles in competition for dominance. politics is the domain of competition of organizing principles, and war is politics by other means. the whole thing is bound up in a broad construction of what an argument is, which is a disagreement brought to a head, not simply a logico linguistic form of discourse aimed at ironing out disagreements. that is perhaps the most civilized and refined form of argument, true, but this is why alpha is a kind of fragile bubble nested within a larger situation

Si arguing: the best revenge is living well (don't think about the words, think about actually seeing someone live well)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

in short to say EIIs don't argue is really to say "EII's don't argue like me"

---

No, it's not. EIIs 1) don't value Fe/Ti so they care less about convincing people of their views / agreeing with people, preferring to simply avoid people that they aren't compatible with (Fi) and 2) don't value Se (and have Se vulnerable + Si mobilizing in particular) so they tend to avoid conflict and stressful situations.

An example I have personally witnessed, to illustrate what I mean:

-LSI and EII have different ideas about how to do something
-LSI contacts EII periodically and attempts to "hash out" their differences
-EII instead prefers to avoid talking about (or resolving) the issue and maintain the status quo
-this causes the LSI to see the EII as not caring about the issue, making LSI more angry with EII
-EII continues to be avoidant
etc.

This is what I mean by "EIIs don't like to argue" and if you aren't able to conceive of a person who is like this, it says more about your own personality than anything. Being avoidant is the exact opposite of arguing. If you had two EIIs they may have less reason to avoid one another but it wouldn't be the kind of heated, out-in-the-open debate that Betas prefer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

No, it's not. EIIs 1) don't value Fe/Ti so they care less about convincing people of their views / agreeing with people, preferring to simply avoid people that they aren't compatible with (Fi) and 2) don't value Se (and have Se vulnerable + Si mobilizing in particular) so they tend to avoid conflict and stressful situations.

An example I have personally witnessed, to illustrate what I mean:

-LSI and EII have different ideas about how to do something
-LSI contacts EII periodically and attempts to "hash out" their differences
-EII instead prefers to avoid talking about (or resolving) the issue and maintain the status quo
-this causes the LSI to see the EII as not caring about the issue, making LSI more angry with EII
-EII continues to be avoidant
etc.

This is what I mean by "EIIs don't like to argue" and if you aren't able to conceive of a person who is like this, it says more about your own personality than anything. Being avoidant is the exact opposite of arguing. If you had two EIIs they may have less reason to avoid one another but it wouldn't be the kind of heated, out-in-the-open debate that Betas prefer.

---

Maybe, but then how do you explain that EIIs are often said to be proselytizing, giving moral lectures to others. Or do you mean that the way they do this is very different?

You could have just shortened that by saying, "I define EIIs as someone who doesn't like to argue".

if EIIs don't like to argue how do they conflict with SLE, why doesn't SLE just win? when it comes to pain it seems EII gives it as good as they get it. when they look at people as the face of conscience, what is that if not an argument. if they literally had no ability to compete they would have been selected out a long time ago. they embody a form of argument that just hits on a channel you're presently short shrifting.

if you constrain argument to "verbal altercation of explicit rational postulates" then yeah they don't like to argue but that's an artificially constrained view of the subject. there's nothing wrong with it being artificially constrained, but the point is if the model is an artificial constraint and someone can artificially draw those lines in a different place, that is precisely why we have competing models and so forth. there's no problem with competing models either, the point is simply that arguments ultimately are resolved across a higher level. this stuff doesn't end here, this is why I say to Myst her and Sol could be reversed, my point is not that they're definitely reversed, but rather that such a thing is possible. right now in the final analysis these models signify the preferred orientation of individuals toward phenomena. what selects between them is not their Ti but a natural force of which Ti is a subsidiary component in the service of. the arguments that win are selected not for their internal symmetry since you can gerrymander any system you want, but the real results they produce. in that sense what people are aiming for when they use socionics often determines the model they adapt... thus it should come as no surprise people argue and arguments explicitly revolving around socionics tend to be Ti, but that's only one piece of the picture. when I leave here and go apply it or observe the world with socionics in mind, to the extent that I benefit and influence the world and pass on that influence in time is an argument all its own. if your argument is perfect in your own mind but fails to reach other people the argument fails when you die a natural death, you could say it served a kind of introverted purpose but not an extroverted one because it was convincing internally but ended there... to say arguments are Ti is the statement of a Ti base affirming its own commitment to itself by construing the world and its ability to influence and be influenced solely in terms of Ti... its simply the lens through which you view things not the actual case. if you think all arguments entail people sitting down and hashing things out and that anything other than that is not an argument, then you view the world in limited terms. humanity is a forum where arguments play themselves out across every level all the time and nature selects between them and that is how we have things other than Ti to begin with. if Ti was the true limit to argument and not one sub instance of it, embodied in a certain type of individual, we would have nothing but Ti types competing amongst themselves if nature was doing its job. the other functions answer to a higher power than your individual rationality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delilah

Maybe, but then how do you explain that EIIs are often said to be proselytizing, giving moral lectures to others. Or do you mean that the way they do this is very different?

---

EIIs can express judgements, like "what you do was wrong", but I wouldn't call it "proselytizing" in the sense of making an impassioned attempt to get someone to change their ways, as an EIE might.

Probably the more typical case is for them to feel the judgment internally and only make it privy to someone they already have a close relationship with and/or would be sympathetic -- which, again does essentially nothing to confront the actual problem head-on.